United States v. Quicken Loans Inc.
217 F. Supp. 3d 272
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- The United States sued Quicken Loans under the False Claims Act alleging Quicken knowingly approved FHA‑insured mortgage loans that violated FHA rules and falsely certified compliance between Sept. 1, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2011.
- Quicken preemptively filed an APA action in the Eastern District of Michigan one week before the FCA suit was filed in D.C.; that Michigan APA suit was later dismissed with prejudice.
- This Court initially stayed the D.C. FCA case pending resolution of the Michigan APA suit; after dismissal of the APA suit Quicken renewed a motion to transfer the FCA case to the Eastern District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- Key disputed factual locus: Quicken contends the underwriting, endorsements, approvals, loan files, and relevant employees are in Michigan; the government contends FHA/HUD officials in D.C. received and processed the challenged certifications and authored relevant policy.
- The Court found the substantive decisions and majority of operative events occurred in the Eastern District of Michigan, while document processing and some agency involvement occurred in D.C., and therefore the government’s choice of forum merited little deference.
- Balancing § 1404(a) factors, the Court concluded private‑interest factors (where claims arose, parties’ choices) and local interest favored transfer; convenience and governing‑law factors were neutral; docket congestion slightly weighed against transfer. The Court granted transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transferee court is a proper venue under § 1404(a) | D.C. is appropriate because FHA/HUD officials in D.C. received/processed Quicken’s submissions and authored underwriting policy | Eastern District of Michigan is proper because the underwriting, endorsements, loan files, and Quicken employees who made the challenged decisions are located in Michigan | Case could have been brought in EDMI; transfer granted under § 1404(a) |
| Deference to plaintiff’s choice of forum | Government’s choice of D.C. entitled to deference | Quicken: little deference because D.C. has an insubstantial nexus; Quicken’s actions occurred in Michigan | Government’s forum choice entitled to little deference; favors transfer |
| Convenience of parties, witnesses, and access to proof | D.C. more convenient because many government witnesses in D.C.; some HUD centers nearer D.C. | Michigan more convenient because most Quicken witnesses, nonparty borrowers/appraisers, and loan files are in Michigan | Neutral — parties/witnesses and documents split; electronic files reduce weight |
| Public‑interest factors (local interest and congestion) | National interest in taxpayer protection favors D.C.; D.C. docket is slightly faster | EDMI has stronger local interest because the alleged misconduct occurred there | Local interest favors EDMI; relative congestion slightly favors D.C. but not dispositive; overall favors transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hope Power Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 724 F. Supp. 90 (D.D.C. 2010) (describing case‑by‑case § 1404(a) analysis)
- SEC v. Savoy Indus., Inc., 587 F.2d 1149 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (framing individualized convenience/fairness inquiry)
- Fed. Housing Fin. Agency v. First Tenn. Nat’l Bank, 856 F. Supp. 2d 186 (D.D.C. 2012) (holding mere receipt/processing by federal agencies in D.C. does not control venue deference)
- McClamrock v. Eli Lilly & Co., 267 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D.D.C. 2003) (diminished deference where chosen forum has little connection to operative facts)
- Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram, P.C. v. Hazard, 24 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D.D.C. 1998) (listing private and public § 1404(a) factors)
- S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Lewis, 845 F. Supp. 2d 231 (D.D.C. 2012) (assessing where majority of events giving rise to claim occurred)
- EEOC v. Univ. of Pa., 850 F.2d 969 (3d Cir. 1988) (discussing consequences of anticipatory/first‑filed suits)
- Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader‑Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2010) (illustrating differing fact patterns on parallel suits and venue outcomes)